REVIEW ARTICLE Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4): 259-272

0112-1642/00/0004-0259/$20.00/0

© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.

Effects of Throwing Overweight and

Underweight Baseballs on Throwing
Velocity and Accuracy
Rafael F. Escamilla,1 Kevin P. Speer,1 Glenn S. Fleisig,2 Steven W. Barrentine2
and James R. Andrews2
1 Michael W. Krzyzewski Human Performance Laboratory, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery,
Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
2 American Sports Medicine Institute, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
1. Effects of Throwing Overweight Baseballs on Throwing Velocity and Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . 261
2. Effects of Throwing Overweight and Underweight Baseballs on Throwing Velocity . . . . . . . . . 264
3. Related Research Question: Does Throwing Overweight and Underweight Baseballs
Increase Injury Risk? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
4. Related Research Question: Are There Kinematic and Kinetic Differences Between
Throwing Regulation Baseballs and Throwing Overweight and Underweight Baseballs? . . . . . . 266
5. Related Research Question: Are There Kinematic and Kinetic Differences Between
Throwing Regulation Baseballs and Throwing Overweight Implements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Abstract The purpose of this review is to determine how throwing overweight and
underweight baseballs affects baseball throwing velocity and accuracy. Two stud-
ies examined how a warm-up with overweight baseballs affected throwing ve-
locity and accuracy of 5oz regulation baseballs. One of these studies showed
significant increases in throwing velocity and accuracy, while the other study
found no significant differences. Three training studies (6 to 12 weeks in duration)
using overweight baseballs were conducted to determine how they affected ball
accuracy while throwing regulation baseballs. No significant differences were
found in any study. From these data it is concluded that warming up or training
with overweight baseballs does not improve ball accuracy. Seven overweight and
4 underweight training studies (6 to 12 weeks in duration) were conducted to
determine how throwing velocity of regulation baseballs was affected due to
training with these overweight and underweight baseballs. The overweight base-
balls ranged in weight from 5.25 to 17oz, while the underweight baseballs were
between 4 and 4.75oz. Data from these training studies strongly support the
practice of training with overweight and underweight baseballs to increase throw-
ing velocity of regulation baseballs. Since no injuries were reported throughout
the training studies, throwing overweight and underweight baseballs may not be
more stressful to the throwing arm compared to throwing regulation baseballs.
260
However, since currently there are no injury data related to throwing overweight
and underweight baseballs, this should be the focus of subsequent studies. In
addition, research should be initiated to determine whether throwing kinematics
and kinetics are different between throwing regulation baseballs and throwing
overweight and underweight baseballs.
Training with overweight and underweight im-
plements has its roots in the speed-strength specific-
ity training programmes of the former Soviet Union
and European countries. Soviet athletes have been
training with overweight and underweight imple-
ments for several decades. Some of the results from
Soviet research[1-6] regarding the use of overweight
and underweight implements during training are as
follows: (i) the employment of varied resistance
training enhances speed-strength (power) develop-
ment; (ii) resistance variations in training should
range between 5 and 20% of normal resistance; and
(iii) a 2 : 1 frequency ratio of throwing weighted
and regulation weight implements, respectively,
maximised power output. However, most of the
Soviet weight implement research was conducted
with implements that weigh considerably more than
a baseball, such as the shot put, hammer, discus and
javelin. In these field events the distance thrown is
of primary importance, while the accuracy of the
throw is of less importance. In throwing a baseball,
both velocity and accuracy are paramount in throw-
ing performance, especially for baseball pitchers.
The premise behind underweight training is that
body segments will move at higher speeds with less
muscle force generated, since lighter than normal
implements are thrown. Conversely, since heavier
than normal implements are thrown during over-
weight training, body segments move at slower
speeds with greater muscle force generated. Con-
sequently, training with underweight implements
is considered more as speed training, while training
with overweight implements is considered more as
strength training. The term ‘speed-strength’, which
probably originated with the former Soviet Union,
is synonymous with the term ‘power’. By definition,
power is the product of speed and force (strength).
Power training conditions the neuromuscular sys-
tem to develop the greatest amount of force in the
 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
Escamilla et al.
least amount of time, in order to overcome resis-
tance with the greatest contraction speed possible.
The force-time relationship is important in pitching,
since there is a very short time interval (approxi-
mately 0.15 seconds) from foot contact to ball re-
lease in which to produce force.[7,8]
Baseball pitching is comprised of extremely rapid
movements of the pelvis, upper torso and upper
extremity. When the pitching movement is performed
in proper sequence, kinetic energy is transferred up
the body (i.e. legs to hips to trunk to arm to wrist
to fingers) to the ball, which is sent toward the batter
at speeds of up to 35 to 40 m/s.[7,8] Since increased
throwing velocity allows a batter less time to de-
cide whether or not to swing (typically less than 0.5
seconds for college and professional hitters), there
has been much interest in ways to improve throwing
velocity. One proposed training method used to in-
crease throwing velocity involves throwing over-
weight and underweight baseballs. Increasing throw-
ing velocity and accuracy is important to positional
players as well. For example, throwing velocity and
accuracy is critical for an outfielder trying to throw
out a runner at home plate, or a third baseman trying
to throw out a runner at first base.
The objective of this paper is to present a review
of research done in the area of overweight and under-
weight resistance throwing, and to discuss 4 ques-
tions and their ramifications:
• Does throwing velocity with regulation 5oz base-
balls increase as a result of warming up or training
with underweight or overweight baseballs, and
what is the long term effect?
• How does warming up or training with over-
weight and underweight baseballs affect the ac-
curacy of throwing regulation baseballs?
• What are the ideal training weights for overweight
or underweight baseballs for maximum improve-
Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)
Throwing Overweight and Underweight Baseballs 261

ment in velocity and accuracy of throwing reg-
ulation baseballs?
• What is the ideal frequency ratio between throw-
ing regulation baseballs and throwing overweight
and underweight baseballs?
Relevant publications involving throwing over-
weight and underweight baseballs comprise 2 groups:
(i) studies published from 1962 to 1973 that exam-
ined the effects of throwing overweight baseballs
on throwing velocity and accuracy of regulation
baseballs; and (ii) studies published from 1985 to
1994 that examined the effects of throwing over-
weight and underweight baseballs on throwing ve-
locity of regulation baseballs. Surprisingly, there
are no known published studies between 1994 and
1999 that examined the effects of throwing over-
weight and underweight baseballs on throwing ve-
locity or accuracy. Table I summarises how train-
ing with overweight and underweight baseballs
affects throwing velocity and accuracy.
1. Effects of Throwing Overweight
Baseballs on Throwing Velocity
and Accuracy
Five studies published between 1962 and 1973
investigated the effects of throwing overweight base-
balls on throwing velocity and accuracy.[9-12,17] Van
Huss et al.[17] looked at the effect of overweight
warm-up on throwing velocity and accuracy. Fifty
college freshman baseball players (all positions)
threw during 2 testing conditions. Firstly, after a
normal warm-up consisting of throwing regulation
baseballs, ball velocities of 10 maximum throws
using regulation baseballs were recorded. After a
10-minute rest period, each player threw 25 pitches
with 11oz overweight baseballs. The first 15 pitches
were thrown with gradually increasing velocity,
followed by 10 maximum throws. Subsequently,
10 maximal throws with regulation baseballs were
recorded. During these 2 testing conditions, accu-
racy was measured by having the participants throw
at a rectangular grid target located at half the reg-
ulation pitching distance (9.2m). Possible scores
ranged from 1 to 5, depending on where the ball
struck the grid (i.e. in or out of the strike zone). The
overweight warm-up significantly increased both
throwing velocity and accuracy of regulation base-
balls. Throwing velocity increased by approximately
5 to 10% due to the overweight warm-up.
Brose and Hanson[9] used 21 college baseball
players (all positions) in studying the effects of over-
weight training on throwing velocity and accuracy.

Table I. Effects of training with overweight and underweight baseballs on throwing velocity and accuracy.
Reference Number of Age level Duration Number of Baseball Significant increase Significant change
participants (w) throws per week weights (oz) in throwing velocity? in accuracy?

Overweight training
Brose & Hanson[9] 7 College 6 75 10, 160a Yes No
Litwhiler & Hamm[10] 5 College 12 165 7-12 Yes (5 m/s) No
Logan et al.[11] 13 College 6 150 40a Yes (6.5-11.6%) NM
Straub[12] 24 High school 6 60 7-17 No No
DeRenne et al.[13,14] 5 High school 10 NS 5-6 Yes (6.67 m/s) NM
DeRenne et al.[14,15] 10 High school 10 150 5-6 Yes (5.3%) NM

Underweight training
DeRenne et al.[13,14] 5 High school 10 NS 4-5 Yes (1.34 m/s) NM
DeRenne et al. [14,15] 10 High school 10 150 4-5 Yes (6.7%) NM
DeRenne et al.[14] 17 High school 10 187 4 Yes (3.2%) NM

Overweight and underweight integral training

DeRenne et al.[14,16] 150 High school 10 198 4-6 Yes (4-6%) NM
and college
a Amount of resistance while throwing a baseball attached to a wall pulley.
NM = accuracy not measured in study; NS = number of throws not specified in study.

 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)
262
The players, whose ages were between 18 and 19
years, were divided evenly into 3 groups: a control
group, an overweight throwing group and a wall
pulley throwing group. All 3 groups trained 3 days
per week on alternating days for 6 weeks. The con-
trol group threw regulation baseballs exclusively
throughout their training sessions. The overweight
throwing group threw 10oz baseballs during their
training, while the wall pulley-throwing group per-
formed the throwing motion with a baseball attached
to a wall pulley device that provided 10lb of resis-
tance.
Each group started each training session by throw-
ing regulation baseballs to warm up. Subsequently,
the control, overweight and wall pulley groups used
regulation baseballs, 10oz baseballs and the wall
pulley resistance, respectively, and performed 5
throws with moderate effort and 20 throws with
maximum effort. The 3 groups ended each training
session by performing 20 maximal throws with reg-
ulation baseballs. Throwing velocities of regula-
tion baseballs were recorded for all groups at the
beginning and end of the 6-week training session.
The 3 groups threw at a rectangular grip target
positioned 10.7m away. Accuracy was measured
by measuring the distance from the center of the
target (in which they were aiming for) to where
each ball hit. From pre-test to post-test measure-
ments in ball velocities, significant increases were
observed for the overweight and wall pulley groups,
but not for the control group. The amount of im-
provement was not reported. No significant differ-
ences were found in throwing accuracy for any group.
Straub[12] looked at the effect of overweight
warm-up and training on throwing velocity and ac-
curacy of regulation baseballs. The volunteers, who
consisted of 108 high school males (aged between
14 and 19 years), were divided into an overweight
warm-up group (n = 60) and an overweight training
group (n = 48). The overweight warm-up group
was pre-tested for throwing velocity and accuracy
during maximal throwing with regulation baseballs.
The warm-up group was then subdivided into a high
velocity group (30 volunteers with highest throw-
ing velocity) and a low velocity group (30 volun-
 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
Escamilla et al.
teers with lowest throwing velocity), with each of
these groups further subdivided into 3 subgroups
of 10 volunteers. Regulation baseballs, 10oz base-
balls and 15oz baseballs served as the experimental
treatments, and were randomly assigned to the 3
subgroups of the high and low velocity groups. Af-
ter an initial warm-up with regulation baseballs,
the 3 subgroups of the high and low velocity groups
performed 20 maximum effort throws with either
regulation baseballs, 10oz baseballs or 15oz base-
balls. Immediately after this overweight warm-up,
all volunteers were post-tested for throwing veloc-
ity and accuracy during maximal throwing of reg-
ulation baseballs. There were no significant differ-
ences in throwing velocity or accuracy between
pre-test and post-test scores for any group.
The 48 participants comprising the overweight
training group were randomly assigned to an ex-
perimental group or a control group. These groups
all trained 3 days per week on alternating days for
6 weeks, with each training session consisting of
throwing 20 throws with maximum effort. The con-
trol group threw regulation baseballs exclusively
throughout the 6 weeks of training, while the ex-
perimental group threw progressively heavier base-
balls throughout the 6 weeks, starting at 7oz during
the first week and progressively increasing 2oz ev-
ery week. Therefore, 17oz baseballs were thrown
by the sixth week of training. Throwing velocities
of regulation baseballs were recorded for control
and experimental groups at the beginning and end
of the 6-week training session. There were no sig-
nificant differences found in throwing velocity or
accuracy between the pre-test and post-test scores
for the control or experimental groups.
Litwhiler and Hamm[10] conducted a 12-week
overweight study using 5 college pitchers. The pur-
pose of the study was to determine how overweight
training affected throwing velocity and accuracy
during pitching with regulation baseballs. The weight
of the overweight baseballs ranged from 7 to 12oz.
The 7oz baseballs were used during the first 2 weeks
of training, while the baseball weight was increased
by 1oz after each subsequent 2-week training inter-
val. Therefore, 12oz baseballs were used during the
Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)
Throwing Overweight and Underweight Baseballs
final 2 weeks of training. Each pitcher trained 3 days
a week with a rest day in between. After a warm-up
with regulation baseballs, 15 throws were performed
with overweight baseballs, followed by 20 throws
with regulation baseballs, 10 throws with overweight
baseballs and 10 throws with regulation baseballs.
Therefore, each session consisted of throwing 25
overweight baseballs and 30 regulation baseballs.
The regulation baseballs were always thrown with
maximum effort, while overweight baseballs were
thrown with alternating sub-maximum and maxi-
mum efforts. During the 12-week training period
the pitchers threw at a rectangular grid target that
was located 18.4m away (i.e. regulation pitching
distance). Ball accuracy was measured according
to where the ball hit the grid (i.e. in or out of the
strike zone). Prior to and after the 12-week training
period, throwing velocity and accuracy was tested
for all pitchers during maximum throwing of reg-
ulation baseballs. From pre-test and post-test meas-
urements, throwing velocity increased an average
of 5.0 m/s (11.2 miles per hour) due to the 12 weeks
of training, but there was not a significant improve-
ment in ball accuracy due to overweight training.
Logan et al.[11] examined the effects of throwing
a baseball against resistance on throwing velocity
of regulation baseballs. Three equal-sized groups
of 13 collegiate baseball pitchers served as volun-
teers. Throwing velocities of regulation baseballs
were recorded for the 39 volunteers at the begin-
ning and end of the 6-week training session. Each
group’s pretest throwing velocities were not signif-
icantly different from each other (approximately
34 m/s for all 3 groups).
Group I trained by throwing a baseball attached
to an isotonic resistance device (the Exergenie),
which provided 2.5lb of resistance. This resistance
was chosen since it was great enough to provide an
overload effect, but believed small enough to min-
imally alter the normal throwing motion and seg-
mental speeds of movement. Group II trained with
regulation baseballs exclusively, while group III
served as a control and did not throw or resistance
train during the 6-week training period. The 6-week
training sessions for groups I and II consisted of
 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
263
performing 30 normal overhand throws per day for
5 days per week.
From post-test measurements, group I had sig-
nificantly greater throwing velocity compared to
groups II and III, while groups II and III showed
no significant differences in throwing velocity com-
pared to each other. Post-test throwing velocity was
6.5% greater for group 1 compared to group 2, and
11.6% greater for group 1 compared to group 3.
Performing the throwing motion against resistance
was effective in increasing throwing velocity of
regulation baseballs.
Four of the 5 studies above demonstrated that
training or warming up with overweight baseballs
produced an increase in the throwing velocity of
regulation baseballs. One important question that
arises from these results is what mechanism caused
these increases in throwing velocities. From these
data, it can be deduced that the observed increase
in throwing velocity is possibly due to an increase
in arm strength that resulted from training with over-
weight baseballs. Numerous weight training stud-
ies have shown that overloading a muscle with a
resistance greater than that muscle is normally sub-
jected to causes an increase in muscle strength.[18-23]
Furthermore, there have been several studies that
have demonstrated an increase in the throwing ve-
locity of regulation baseballs due to participating
in a weight training programme.[24-27]
There were a few limitations to the above stud-
ies that diminish their validity: (i) subjects were
taken from a general population of high school males
rather than baseball players;[12] (ii) the range of
weighted baseballs thrown may be excessive, caus-
ing deviation from the normal throwing pattern seen
during regular pitching;[12] (iii) a greater number
of throws may be needed during the training ses-
sions in order to find significant differences;[12]
(iv) the percentage increases in throwing velocity
appear high for only 6 weeks of training;[11] and (v)
an improvement of 5.0 m/s seems inordinately high,
especially in only 12 weeks of training.[10] As train-
ing started during the off season, when the pitchers
may not have been throwing, any type of throwing
programme could produce initial increases in throw-
Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)
264
ing velocity, because the pitching arm would be in
an unconditioned state. Different results may have
been found if the throwing programme had started
when the participants’ pitching arms were already
highly conditioned (e.g. at the end of the baseball
season). Furthermore, using a control group who
threw only regulation baseballs may have also pro-
duced different results.
2. Effects of Throwing Overweight
and Underweight Baseballs on
Throwing Velocity
DeRenne et al.[13-16] conducted several overweight
and underweight throwing studies at the University
of Hawaii from 1982 to 1988, which represents the
published overweight and underweight literature
from 1985 to 1994. These studies had the following
objectives: (i) to determine the ideal weight ranges
of overweight and underweight baseballs; (ii) to
determine if training with overweight and under-
weight baseballs increased the velocity of 5oz regu-
lation baseballs; (iii) to determine ideal pitch ratios
and sequences for weighted baseballs; and (iv) to
determine the incidence of arm injuries due to
training with overweight and underweight baseballs.
Their initial 1982 pilot study[13,14] was conducted
to determine how 10 weeks of training with slightly
overweight (0 to 20% greater weight than regula-
tion baseballs) and underweight (0 to 20% less weight
than regulation baseballs) baseballs affected throw-
ing velocity of regulation baseballs. Ten high school
baseball pitchers, whose age ranged between 16
and 18 years, served as volunteers. One group of 5
volunteers threw only underweight baseballs, while
a second group of 5 volunteers threw only over-
weight baseballs. Both groups threw only regula-
tion baseballs during the first 2 weeks of training.
Each subsequent 2-week training period resulted in
throwing baseballs that were 0.25oz lower for the
underweight group and 0.25oz higher for the over-
weight group than the previous 2-week period.
Therefore, over the 10-week training period the un-
derweight group threw baseballs ranging from 4 to
5oz, while the overweight group threw baseballs
ranging from 5 to 6oz.
 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
Escamilla et al.
The overweight and underweight groups trained
3 sessions per week during the 10 weeks of training.
The underweight group began each training ses-
sion with a 5- to 10-minute warm-up throwing reg-
ulation baseballs. Subsequently, 5 to 10 minutes of
long toss throwing (up to 45m) and 15 minutes of
bullpen throwing (i.e. pitching off a pitching mound
while throwing to a catcher) was done at 50 to 75%
maximum throwing effort using underweight base-
balls. In addition, once per week the underweight
group performed 10 to 15 minutes of maximum
effort bullpen throwing using underweight base-
balls, and 1 to 10 minutes of maximum effort bull-
pen throwing using regulation baseballs. The over-
weight group began each training session with a
15-minute warm-up using overweight baseballs
during long toss throwing (up to 45m), followed by
10 to 15 minutes of bullpen throwing at 50 to 75%
maximum effort. In addition, once per week the
underweight group did 10 to 15 minutes of maxi-
mum effort bullpen throwing using overweight
baseballs, and 10 minutes of maximum effort bull-
pen throwing using regulation baseballs. Throwing
velocities of regulation baseballs were recorded for
both groups at the beginning and end of the 10-
week training session. From pre-test to post-test
measurements in throwing velocities, significant
increases in velocities were observed with both the
underweight (1.34 m/s increase) and overweight
(0.67 m/s increase) training groups. These prelim-
inary data provided the impetus for several sub-
sequent studies by these authors.
In 1984, DeRenne et al.[14,15] conducted a follow-
up study to their 1982 pilot study, but this time a
control group was used. Thirty high school baseball
pitchers (aged between 16 and 18 years) were ran-
domly and equally divided into overweight, under-
weight and control groups. Each of these 3 groups
threw 50 pitches 3 times per week for 10 weeks.
For each training session, the underweight group
threw 30 regulation baseballs and 20 underweight
baseballs, while the overweight group threw 30
regulation baseballs and 20 overweight baseballs.
All 50 throws per training session for the control
group were with regulation baseballs. All groups
Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)
Throwing Overweight and Underweight Baseballs
threw regulation baseballs for the first 2 weeks.
Each subsequent 2-week training period resulted
in throwing baseballs that were 0.25oz lower for
the underweight group and 0.25oz higher for the
overweight group than the previous 2-week period.
Therefore, over the 10-week training period the un-
derweight group threw baseballs ranging from 4 to
5oz, the overweight group threw baseballs ranging
from 5 to 6oz and the control group threw regula-
tion baseballs exclusively. From pre-test to post-
test measurements in throwing velocities, signifi-
cant increases in velocity were observed for the
underweight group (6.7% increase) and overweight
group (5.3% increase), but no significant differ-
ence in throwing velocities was found in the con-
trol group (1.2% increase).
A 1986 underweight throwing project was con-
ducted[14] to determine how 10 weeks of training
with slightly underweight baseballs (4oz) affected
throwing velocity of 5oz regulation baseballs. Thirty-
four high school pitchers were equally divided into
a control group and an underweight group. Both
groups performed 3 training sessions per week for
10 weeks. The training progression for the under-
weight group was as follows: (i) for weeks 1 to 3
there were 54 pitches thrown per session (nine 5oz,
thirty-six 4oz and nine 5oz); (ii) for weeks 4 to 6
there were 60 pitches thrown per session (ten 5oz,
forty 4oz and ten 5oz); (iii) for weeks 7 to 8 there
were 66 pitches thrown per session (eleven 5oz,
forty-four 4oz and eleven 4oz); and (iv) for weeks
9 to 10 there were 75 pitches thrown per session
(twelve 5oz, fifty 4oz and thirteen 5oz). Through-
out the 10 weeks of training the control group threw
the same number of pitches per session as did the
underweight group, but threw regulation baseballs
exclusively. From pre-test to post-test measurements
in throwing velocities, significant increases in ve-
locity were observed for the underweight group
(3.3% increase), but no significant difference in
throwing velocities was found in the control group
(0.69% decrease).
A 1987 to 1988 ‘integral’ project was conduc-
ted[14,16] with 225 high school and college baseball
pitchers randomly and equally divided into over-
 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
265
weight, underweight and control groups. Each group
was comprised of 15 high school pitchers (mean
age of 16.6 ± 0.57 years) and 60 college pitchers
(mean age of 19.6 ± 0.46 years). The overweight
and underweight integrated groups (groups 1 and
2) threw underweight, overweight and regulation
baseballs in their training programme, while the
control group (group 3) threw only regulation base-
balls throughout the training cycle. The training
protocol employed for the 3 groups is shown in
table II. While group 1 threw regulation, overweight
and underweight baseballs throughout the 10-week
training period, group 2 trained with regulation and
overweight baseballs during the first 5 weeks, and
then trained with regulation and underweight base-
balls during the last 5 weeks. All pitchers in all
groups pitched at regulation pitching distance.
From pre-test to post-test measurements in throw-
ing velocities, significant increases (approximately
4 to 6%) in throwing velocity were found in both
high school and college pitchers in both experi-
mental groups, but no significant difference in throw-
ing velocity was found for the control group. Since
the percentage increases in pitching velocity be-
tween group 1 and group 2 were approximately the
same, this implies that both training protocols were
equally effective in increasing pitching velocity.
The above data from DeRenne et al.[13-16] support
work done by Vasiliev,[5] who concluded from his
own weight implement research in speed-strength
development that the most effective force was
found in those combinations in which the lighter
and heavier weights differed no more than 20%
from the regulation weight of the implement. How-
ever, since work by Vasiliev[5] involved throwing
the shot put, which is quite different than throwing
a baseball, it is difficult to compare these data. It
has also been recommended that resistance varia-
tions from the regulation weight of a throwing im-
plement should not exceed 5%.[6] The protocol em-
ployed by group 2 (table II) was patterned after
Soviet strength training studies[2,5] which showed
that a functional strength base should first be es-
tablished by throwing heavier implements prior to
speed training by throwing lighter implements.
Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)
266 Escamilla et al.

Furthermore, the employed 2 : 1 ratio of throwing
weighted (overweight and underweight) baseballs
to regulation baseballs, as well as the weighted
baseballs being 20% greater than or less than the
weight of regulation baseballs, were also patterned
after Soviet throwing research.[1-6]
3. Related Research Question: Does
Throwing Overweight and Underweight
Baseballs Increase Injury Risk?
It is interesting that most of the training studies
with overweight and underweight baseballs stated
that there were no injuries reported throughout the
training period.[10,13-16] However, performance, not
throwing injuries, was the primary focus of these
studies. Hence, it is difficult to draw definite con-
clusions regarding the relationship between throw-
ing overweight and underweight baseballs and in-
jury risk. In addition, these training studies were
only 10 to 12 weeks in duration, which may not
have been long enough to observe injury pattern
differences between throwing regulation baseballs
and throwing overweight and underweight base-
balls. Therefore, additional studies are needed that
are longer in duration and that focus more on injury
risk in order to better understand what deleterious
effects may occur due to throwing overweight and
underweight baseballs.
4. Related Research Question: Are
There Kinematic and Kinetic
Differences Between Throwing
Regulation Baseballs and
Throwing Overweight and
Underweight Baseballs?
Unfortunately, there are no known studies in the
literature that have compared kinetic and kinematic
parameters (except ball velocity) between throwing
regulation baseballs and throwing overweight and
underweight baseballs. Kinetic analyses will pro-
vide shoulder and elbow force and torque data be-
tween throwing regulation baseballs and throwing
overweight and underweight baseballs. This will
provide insight regarding the injury risk involved
in throwing overweight and underweight baseballs.
Kinematic analyses will provide insight regarding

Table II. Training schedule, lesson plan and weights of baseballs used (from DeRenne et al.,[16] with permission)
Weeks Number of sessions Total pitches Sequence of pitches Weight of baseballs (oz)

Group 1
1-2 3 54 9-18-18-9 (R-H-L-R) 5-6-4-5
3-4 3 60 10-20-20-10 (R-H-L-R) 5-6-4-5
5-6 3 66 11-22-22-11 (R-H-L-R) 5-6-4-5
7-8 3 72 12-24-24-12 (R-H-L-R) 5-6-4-5
9-10 3 78 13-26-26-13 (R-H-L-R) 5-6-4-5

Group 2
1-2 3 54 9-36-9 (R-H-R) 5-6-5
3-4 3 60 10-40-10 (R-H-R) 5-6-5
5-6 3 66 11-44-11 : 11-44-11 (R-H-R : R-L-R) 5-6-5; 5-4-5
7-8 3 72 12-48-12 (R-L-R) 5-4-5
9-10 3 78 13-52-13 (R-L-R) 5-4-5

Group 3
1-2 3 54 54 (R) 5
3-4 3 60 60 (R) 5
5-6 3 66 66 (R) 5
7-8 3 72 72 (R) 5
9-10 3 78 78 (R) 5
H = heavy 6oz baseball; L = light 4oz baseball; R = regulation 5oz baseball.

 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)
Throwing Overweight and Underweight Baseballs
throwing mechanics and help determine how throw-
ing mechanics change as different weight baseballs
are employed.
5. Related Research Question: Are
There Kinematic and Kinetic
Differences Between Throwing
Regulation Baseballs and Throwing
Overweight Implements?
The aforementioned overweight throwing stud-
ies used overweight baseballs that ranged between
7 and 17oz, with the heaviest baseball weighing
approximately 3 times the weight of a regulation
baseball. It is interesting that a football also weighs
3 times the weight of a regulation baseball. In fact,
some major league professional baseball pitchers
have employed a football as an overweight training
implement.[14] Professional pitchers have stated that
throwing a football provided a good warm up prior
to throwing a baseball, helped minimise and alleviate
shoulder and elbow joint stiffness and soreness the
day after pitching, and helped strengthen the arm.[14]
It is also believed that throwing a football helps
reinforce good baseball throwing mechanics, espe-
cially when thrown with a tight spiral.[14] However,
since these beliefs have not been validated scien-
tifically, they should be viewed cautiously.
Although it is unknown how the kinematics and
kinetics of throwing a 15oz football compare to
throwing a 15oz overweight baseball, there may be
some similarities. Hence, the kinematics and kinetics
between throwing regulation baseballs and throw-
ing a 15oz football may have similarities compared
to the kinematics and kinetics between throwing
regulations baseballs and throwing 15oz overweight
baseballs. Although throwing a baseball is a sim-
ilar arm motion compared to throwing a football,
Fleisig et al.[8] have reported several kinematic dif-
ferences between football throwing and baseball
pitching. There were several significant kinematic
differences between baseball pitching and football
throwing (table III). With these numerous kinematic
differences, the efficacy of throwing a football dur-
ing baseball season should be questioned, since un-
desirable neuromuscular firing patterns may be
 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
267
detrimental to baseball pitching. Furthermore, the
timing of when these kinematic parameters occur
is also different between baseball pitching and foot-
ball passing.[8] However, throwing a football (or
other weighted implement) during the off-season
may be an appropriate resistance implement that
can be used to strengthen the arm.
An important question concerning throwing over-
weight baseballs is how the magnitudes of shoulder
and elbow kinetics (i.e. forces and torques) compare
to the kinetics generated while throwing regulation
baseballs. Fleisig et al.[8] quantified shoulder and
elbow kinetics between baseball pitching and foot-
ball throwing and found significant kinetic differ-
ences occurred only during the arm deceleration
phase (table IV). Since shoulder and elbow forces
and torques were greatest during the deceleration
phase of football throwing and baseball pitching,
injury potential may also be greatest during this
period. Hence, throwing an overweight ball, such
as a football, may not only enhance the throwing
velocity of regulation baseballs, but also may gen-
erate lower magnitude forces about the shoulder
and elbow compared to baseball pitching.
Although shoulder and elbow injuries due to
baseball throwing have been well documented,[28-44]
there are no known studies that have reported shoul-
der and elbow injuries specifically due to throwing
a football. Hence, research is needed in this area.
However, it appears that baseball pitchers incur
greater repetitive trauma to the shoulder and elbow
compared to quarterbacks. Compared to a quarter-
back, a pitcher performs a greater number of throws
during a season, and also renders a higher percent-
age of hard throws. For example, a starting pitcher
in college or professional baseball throws approx-
imately 100 pitches in a typical outing. In a football
game, most college or professional quarterbacks
average approximately 20 to 30 throws per game.
Furthermore, most starting professional pitchers
pitch in approximately 25 to 40 games per season,
which is 2 to 3 times greater than the number of
games that a quarterback will participate in.
There is only one other known study that has
compared kinematic and kinetic parameters between
Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)
268 Escamilla et al.

Table III. Kinematic comparison between baseball pitching and football passing (from Fleisig et al.,[8] with permission)
Parameter Pitching (n = 26) Passing (n = 26)
Mean SD Mean SD

Instant of foot contact

Stride length from ankle to ankle (% height)* 74 5 61 8
Shoulder abduction (°) 93 12 96 13
Shoulder horizontal adduction (°)* –17 12 7 15
Shoulder external rotation (°) 67 24 90 33
Elbow flexion (°)* 98 18 77 12
Lead knee flexion (°)* 51 11 39 11

Arm cocking phase

Maximum pelvis angular velocity (°/s)* 660 80 500 110
Maximum shoulder horizontal adduction (°)* 18 8 32 9
Maximum upper torso angular velocity (°/s)* 1170 100 950 130
Maximum elbow flexion (°)* 100 13 113 10

Instant of maximum shoulder external rotation

Maximum shoulder external rotation (°) 173 10 164 12

Arm acceleration phase

Maximum elbow extension velocity (°/s)* 2340 300 1760 210
Average shoulder abduction during acceleration (°)* 93 9 108 8

Instant of ball release

Throwing velocity (m/s)* 35 3 21 2
Shoulder horizontal adduction (°)* 7 7 26 9
Elbow flexion (°)* 22 6 36 8
Trunk tilt forward (°) 58 10 65 8
Trunk tilt sideways (°)* 124 9 116 5
Lead knee flexion (°)* 40 12 28 9

Arm deceleration phase

Maximum shoulder internal rotation velocity (°/s)* 7550 1360 4950 1080
Minimum elbow flexion (°)* 18 5 24 5
Average upper torso angular velocity (°/s)* 470 160 310 110
SD = standard deviation; * = p < 0.001.

throwing regulation baseballs and throwing over-
weight implements. Using 9 college baseball pitch-
ers, Castagno et al.[45] compared kinematics and
kinetics between throwing regulation baseballs (nor-
mal condition) and overload throwing while pitch-
ing off an indoor pitching mound. The overload
condition consisted of throwing regulation base-
balls while wearing a 7oz weighted glove positioned
along the dorsal surface of the hand. Therefore, the
total weight of the 7oz weighted glove and 5oz reg-
ulation baseball was 12oz. This study was unique
in the sense that the extra weight was not released,
since it was firmly attached to the back of the hand.
Kinematic results show that the overload condition
demonstrated greater shoulder external rotation during
arm cocking, greater elbow extension angular ve-
locity during arm acceleration, more forward trunk
tilt near ball release and more elbow flexion through-
out the pitch. Kinetic results consistently revealed
greater elbow forces and torques and greater shoulder
torques in the overload condition. Compared with
the normal condition, the overload condition showed:
(i) a 13% increase in elbow anterior force (392N vs
348N) during arm acceleration; (ii) a 31% increase
in elbow flexor torque (80 N • m vs 61 N • m) dur-
ing arm acceleration; (iii) an 81% increase in elbow

 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)
Throwing Overweight and Underweight Baseballs
valgus torque (38 N • m vs 21 N • m) during follow-
through; (iv) a 26% increase in shoulder horizontal
adduction torque (116 N • m vs 92 N • m) during
follow-through; and (v) a 43% increase in shoulder
abduction torque (139 N • m vs 97 N • m) during
follow-through.
It is interesting that both the kinematic and ki-
netic results of Castagno et al.[45] differ from the
results of Fleisig et al.[8] However, this is not sur-
prising, since the overload condition from Castagno
et al.[45] involved pitching a regulation baseball off
a mound with a 7oz external weight attached to the
hand, while the overload condition from Fleisig et
al.[8] involved throwing a 15oz football. In both
conditions, maximal or near maximal effort was
used by all participants. What is surprising is that
shoulder and elbow forces and torques in throwing
a football (table IV) were less than pitching a reg-
ulation baseball, even though a football weighs 3
times that of a baseball. In contrast, the overload
pitching condition from Castagno et al.[45] exhibited
greater shoulder and elbow forces and torques com-
pared to pitching a regulation baseball. From data
by Castagno et al.,[45] there are at least 2 reasons
why pitching with weighted implements during the
competitive season may have deleterious effects.
Firstly, the different kinematics seen in weighted
pitching compared to regulation pitching may pro-
duce undesirable neuromuscular and motor patterns
that may adversely affect normal pitching mechan-
ics. Secondly, the higher shoulder and elbow forces
and torques from weighted pitching may exacerbate
shoulder and elbow stress, which is already high
due to the repetitive trauma involved. Similar to
throwing a football, pitching with weighted imple-
ments should be reserved primarily for off-season
training, since it may alter neuromuscular throwing
patterns compared to throwing regulation baseballs.
6. Conclusions
The purpose of this review was to determine the
effects that warm-up and training with overweight
and underweight baseballs had on throwing veloc-
ity and accuracy. One of the 2 warm-up studies
showed that warming up with overweight baseballs
 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
269
enhanced throwing accuracy and velocity. With the
scarcity of data, the effects that warming up with
overweight baseballs have on throwing velocity
and accuracy is inconclusive, and more research is
needed. All 3 training studies show that training
with overweight baseballs did not improve throwing
accuracy. In contrast, 10 of the 11 training studies
show that 6 to 12 weeks of training with overweight
or underweight baseballs significantly increased
throwing velocity of regulation baseballs. What is
unclear is how long these increases in throwing
velocity remain once training with overweight and
underweight baseballs ends and the athlete begins
throwing regulation baseballs exclusively (e.g.
during the competitive season). More research is
needed in this area.
The training studies with overweight baseballs
show improvement in throwing velocity over a large
range in weight variations. Since the overweight
baseballs used in these studies ranged between 5.25
and 17oz, this may be an ideal weight range to use
in training in order to maximise throwing velocity
of regulation baseballs. In contrast, the underweight
baseballs used were all within a narrow weight range
between 4 and 5oz. From most of the research now
available on weighted implement throwing, it ap-
pears that the ideal weight of overweight and un-
derweight baseballs is within 20% of the weight of
a regulation baseball. Hence, underweight baseballs
would weight between 4 and 5oz, and overweight
baseballs would weigh between 5 and 6oz. Future
studies are now needed to compare kinematics and
kinetics between throwing regulation baseballs and
throwing overweight and underweight baseballs.
These studies will help determine the efficacy of
throwing overweight and underweight baseballs dur-
ing the competitive season. If throwing mechanics
are unaltered between weighted and regulation base-
balls, and shoulder and elbow forces and torques
are similar, there may be merit to training with over-
weight and underweight baseballs during the season,
especially if throwing velocity increases.
DeRenne et al.[14,16] showed that the best fre-
quency ratio of throwing slightly overweight and
underweight baseballs to throwing regulation
Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)
270 Escamilla et al.

Table IV. Kinetic comparison between baseball pitching and football passing (from Fleisig et al.,[8] with permission)a
Parameter Pitching (n = 26) Passing (n = 26)
Mean SD Mean SD
Arm cocking phase
Maximum shoulder anterior force (N) 310 50 350 80
Maximum shoulder horizontal adduction torque (N • m) 82 13 78 19
Maximum shoulder internal rotational torque (N • m) 54 10 54 13
Maximum elbow medial force (N) 260 50 280 60
Maximum elbow varus torque (N • m) 51 10 54 13
Arm acceleration phase
Maximum elbow flexion torque (N • m) 47 9 41 8
Arm deceleration phase
Maximum shoulder compressive force (N)* 850 140 660 120
Maximum elbow compressive force (N)** 710 110 620 110
Maximum shoulder adduction torque (N • m)* 79 23 58 34
Follow-through phase
Maximum shoulder posterior force (N) 310 110 240 120
Maximum shoulder horizontal abduction torque (N • m) 85 51 80 34
a Elbow kinetic data are presented as forces and torques applied by the arm onto the forearm. Shoulder kinetic data are presented as
forces and torques applied by the trunk onto the arm. Forces were normalised by bodyweight and torques were normalised by body
weight and height.
SD = standard deviation; * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.001.

baseballs in order to maximise throwing velocity
was 2 : 1. Additional studies may be helpful to in-
vestigate several other frequency ratio possibilities.
Throughout all overweight and underweight
training studies there were no arm injuries reported.
This may imply that training with overweight and
underweight baseballs strengthens the arm and trunk
musculature, thus minimising injury potential, or it
may imply that forces generated at the body joints
(in particular the shoulder and elbow) are lower
when throwing overweight and underweight base-
balls. Nevertheless, the relatively short time dura-
tions of the training studies may be too short to
make any definite conclusions about injury risks,
especially since there were also no injuries reported
while throwing regulation baseballs exclusively. A
long term study is needed regarding the incidence
of throwing injuries when training with regulation
baseballs, compared with training with overweight
and underweight baseballs. A kinetic analysis is
needed to compare shoulder and elbow forces and
torques that are generated between throwing regu-
lation baseballs and throwing overweight and under-
weight baseballs.
Some college and professional baseball organis-
ations question the efficacy of training with over-
weight and underweight baseballs during the sea-
son, and that such training should be limited to the
off-season. The rationale is that during the season
baseball players need to be working on skills that
are very specific to game needs. A player acquires
a certain ‘feel’ for the baseball during throwing,
and acquiring a different feel by training with over-
weight and underweight baseballs could produce
detrimental effects. Throwing velocity and accu-
racy need to be perfected by repetitiously throwing
baseballs of the same size, texture and weight that
are used during competition. The common practice
among pitchers is to simulate the game environ-
ment as closely as possible, which means throwing
with regulation baseballs primarily, especially dur-
ing the competition season. These beliefs among
players and coaches seem consistent with the prin-
ciples of neurophysiology. Neuromuscular coordi-
nation and timing could be adversely affected by
throwing overweight and underweight baseballs
during the season. Different muscle groups may
even be recruited. More research involving kine-

 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)
Throwing Overweight and Underweight Baseballs
matic analyses between throwing regulation base-
balls and throwing overweight and underweight
baseballs is needed before more definite conclu-
sions can be made.
Acknowledgements
The authors extend a special thanks to Kevin Wilk, P.T.
(HealthSouth Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation Center)
and Coach Bill Thurston (Amherst College) for their critical
review of this manuscript. We would like to thank Vern
Gambetta (Chicago White Sox) for his insights and expertise
involving training with overweight and underweight base-
balls. We would also like to extend our gratitude to Coop
DeRenne, D.Ed. (University of Hawaii) and Todd Royer,
Ph.D. (Arizona State University) for their recommendations,
and for providing us with current data relevant to overweight
and underweight throwing. Lastly, we extend our gratitude
to Andy Demonia (American Sports Medicine Institute) for
his technical services in tracking the data and preparing it for
analysis.
References
1. Kanishevsky S. A universal shot. Sov Sports Rev 1984; 19 (4):
207-8
2. Konstantinov O. Training program for high level javelin throwers.
Sov Sports Rev 1979; 14 (3): 130-4
3. Kuznetsov V. Speed and strength. Yessis Rev 1975; 10 (3):
78-83
4. Verkhoshansky Y, Tatyan V. Speed-strength preparation of fu-
ture champions. Sov Sports Rev 1983; 18 (4): 166-70
5. Vasiliev LA. Use of different weight to develop specialized
speed-strength. Sov Sports Rev 1983; 18 (1): 49-52
6. Jarver J. Varied resistance in power development. Mod Athlete
Coach 1973; 10 (6): 5-8
7. Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, Barrentine SW, et al. Kinematic com-
parisons of throwing different types of baseball pitches. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 14 (1): 1-23
8. Fleisig GS, Escamilla RF, Andrews JR, et al. Kinematic and
kinetic comparison between baseball pitching and football
passing. J Appl Biomech 1996; 12: 207-24
9. Brose DE, Hanson DL. Effects of overload training on velocity
and accuracy of throwing. Res Q 1967; 38 (4): 528-33
10. Litwhiler D, Hamm L. Overload: effect on throwing velocity
and accuracy. Athlet J 1973; 53: 64-5, 88
11. Logan GA, McKinney WC, Rowe Jr W, et al. Effect of resis-
tance through a throwing range-of-motion on the velocity of
a baseball. Percept Mot Skills 1966; 23 (1): 55-8
12. Straub WF. Effect of overload training procedures upon velocity
and accuracy of the overarm throw. Res Q 1968; 39 (2): 370-9
13. DeRenne C, Tracy R, Dunn-Rankin P. Increasing throwing ve-
locity. Athlet J 1985 Apr; 65 (9): 36-9
14. DeRenne C, House T. Power baseball. St Paul (MN): West Ed-
ucational Publishing, 1993
15. DeRenne C, Kwok H, Blitzblau A. Effects of weighted imple-
ment training on throwing velocity. J Appl Sport Sci Res
1990; 4 (1): 16-9
 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
271
16. DeRenne C, Buxton BP, Hetzler RK, et al. Effects of under- and
overweighted implement training on pitching velocity. J
Strength Cond Res 1994; 8 (4): 247-50
17. Van Huss WD, Albrecht L, Nelson R, et al. Effect of overload
warm-up on the velocity and accuracy of throwing. Res Q
1962; 33 (3): 472-5
18. Hickson RC, Hidaka K, Foster C. Skeletal muscle fiber type,
resistance training, and strength-related performance. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 1994; 26 (5): 593-8
19. Maughan RJ, Watson JS, Weir J. Muscle strength and cross-
sectional area in man: a comparison of strength-trained and
untrained subjects. Br J Sports Med 1984; 18 (3): 149-57
20. McKenzie Gillam G. Effects of frequency of weight training on
muscle strength enhancement. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1981;
21 (4): 432-6
21. O’Shea P. Effects of selected weight training programs on the
development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. Res Q 1966;
37 (1): 95-102
22. Reid CM, Yeater RA, Ullrich IH. Weight training and strength,
cardiorespiratory functioning and body composition of men.
Br J Sports Med 1987; 21 (1): 40-4
23. Sale DG. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 1988; 20 (5 Suppl.): 135-45S
24. Popescue MG. Weight training and the velocity of a baseball.
Athlet J 1975; 55 (9): 74, 105-6
25. Thompson CW, Martin ET. Weight training and baseball throwing
speed. J Assoc Phys Ment Rehabil 1965; 19 (6): 194-6
26. Wooden MJ, Greenfield B, Johanson M, et al. Effects of strength
training on throwing velocity and shoulder muscle perfor-
mance in teenage baseball players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
1992; 13 (5): 223-8
27. Potteiger JA, Williford HN, Blessing DL, et al. Effect of two
training methods on improving baseball performance variables.
J Appl Sport Sci Res 1992; 6: 2-6
28. Andrews JR. Bony injuries about the elbow in the throwing
athlete. Instr Course Lect 1985; 34: 323-31
29. Andrews JR, Gidumal RH. Shoulder arthroscopy in the throwing
athlete: perspectives and prognosis. Clin Sports Med 1987; 6
(3): 565-71
30. Andrews JR, Kupferman SP, Dillman CJ. Labral tears in throwing
and racquet sports. Clin Sports Med 1991; 10 (4): 901-11
31. Carson Jr WG, Gasser SI. Little Leaguer’s shoulder: a report of
23 cases. Am J Sports Med 1998; 26 (4): 575-80
32. Cicoria AD, McCue FC. Throwing injuries of the shoulder. Va
Med 1988; 115 (7): 327-30
33. DaSilva MF, Williams JS, Fadale PD, et al. Pediatric throwing
injuries about the elbow. Am J Orthop 1998; 27 (2): 90-6
34. Fleisig GS, Andrews JR, Dillman CJ, et al. Kinetics of baseball
pitching with implications about injury mechanisms. Am J
Sports Med 1995; 23 (2): 233-9
35. Gainor BJ, Piotrowski G, Puhl J, et al. The throw: biomechanics
and acute injury. Am J Sports Med 1980; 8 (2): 114-8
36. Gore RM, Rogers LF, Bowerman J, et al. Osseous manifestations
of elbow stress associated with sports activities. AJR Am J
Roent 1980; 134 (5): 971-7
37. Jackson DW. Chronic rotator cuff impingement in the throwing
athlete. Am J Sports Med 1976; 4 (6): 231-40
38. Jobe FW, Nuber G. Throwing injuries of the elbow. Clin Sports
Med 1986; 5 (4): 621-36
39. Lombardo SJ, Jobe FW, Kerlan RK, et al. Posterior shoulder le-
sions in throwing athletes. Am J Sports Med 1977; 5 (3): 106-10
40. Mirowitz SA, London SL. Ulnar collateral ligament injury in
baseball pitchers: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 1992;
185 (2): 573-6
Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)
272 Escamilla et al.

41. Nuber GW, Diment MT. Olecranon stress fractures in throwers: 45. Castagno PW, Richards JG, Axe MJ. The biomechanics of overload
a report of two cases and a review of the literature. Clin Orthop pitching [abstract]. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27 (5): 159S
1992 (278): 58-61
42. Ringel SP, Treihaft M, Carry M, et al. Suprascapular neuropathy
in pitchers. Am J Sports Med 1990; 18 (1): 80-6
43. Savoie FH. Arthroscopic examination of the throwing shoulder.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1993; 18 (2): 409-12
Correspondence and offprints: Dr Rafael Escamilla, Duke
44. Timmerman LA, Andrews JR. Undersurface tear of the ulnar University Medical Center, Division of Orthopaedic Sur-
collateral ligament in baseball players: a newly recognized gery, P.O. Box 3435, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
lesion. Am J Sports Med 1994; 22 (1): 33-6 E-mail: rescamil@duke.edu

 Adis International Limited. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2000 Apr; 29 (4)